80 calorie comparison pic
Replies
-
I didn't watch the video tbh. But I would love to have seen a before and after detailed blood/cholesterol/glucose/etc work up and see what the Big Macs did to his body besides weight and calories. That stuff is not real food. Maybe just grill a really good grass fed burger ie make your own with real food. Nothing beats a good burger if your a meat eater IMHO.
Oh you just committed a MFP sin. you said McD's wasn't real food! haha1 -
I really wish we didn't always get stuck on big macs. I have a harder time arguing in favor of something I, personally, have not eaten for quite a long time. They are a taste of my childhood so if I ever crave one I will make it fit but that just hasn't happened yet and I am not sure it ever will.
Next time we debate this can we go for a quarter pounder with cheese, no ketchup, and extra mustard? TIA Or how about something from Taco Bell? I still crave Krystals (aka White Castles) on occasion that would work.5 -
I really wish we didn't always get stuck on big macs. I have a harder time arguing in favor of something I, personally, have not eaten for quite a long time. They are a taste of my childhood so if I ever crave one I will make it fit but that just hasn't happened yet and I am not sure it ever will.
Next time we debate this can we go for a quarter pounder with cheese, no ketchup, and extra mustard? TIA Or how about something from Taco Bell? I still crave Krystals (aka White Castles) on occasion that would work.
The TB Chicken Quesadilla is 500 cals, and they don't even bother to put lettuce on it
I used to get that with a Meximelt and a coke with no idea that was probably close to 1000 calories all together. Now I get it with a side of beans and a diet soda, and plan the rest of the day around it.3 -
I really wish we didn't always get stuck on big macs. I have a harder time arguing in favor of something I, personally, have not eaten for quite a long time. They are a taste of my childhood so if I ever crave one I will make it fit but that just hasn't happened yet and I am not sure it ever will.
Next time we debate this can we go for a quarter pounder with cheese, no ketchup, and extra mustard? TIA Or how about something from Taco Bell? I still crave Krystals (aka White Castles) on occasion that would work.
The TB Chicken Quesadilla is 500 cals, and they don't even bother to put lettuce on it
I used to get that with a Meximelt and a coke with no idea that was probably close to 1000 calories all together. Now I get it with a side of beans and a diet soda, and plan the rest of the day around it.
That is a dish I could get behind. I don't eat them often because they are not much food for the calories either but I would have that long before I had a big mac.
I am an 80/20 guy so while I am sitting here eating my cod/kimchi salad I am also thinking about getting some Arby's potato cakes when I run some errands a little later.9 -
I really wish we didn't always get stuck on big macs. I have a harder time arguing in favor of something I, personally, have not eaten for quite a long time. They are a taste of my childhood so if I ever crave one I will make it fit but that just hasn't happened yet and I am not sure it ever will.
Next time we debate this can we go for a quarter pounder with cheese, no ketchup, and extra mustard? TIA Or how about something from Taco Bell? I still crave Krystals (aka White Castles) on occasion that would work.
The TB Chicken Quesadilla is 500 cals, and they don't even bother to put lettuce on it
I used to get that with a Meximelt and a coke with no idea that was probably close to 1000 calories all together. Now I get it with a side of beans and a diet soda, and plan the rest of the day around it.
That is a dish I could get behind. I don't eat them often because they are not much food for the calories either but I would have that long before I had a big mac.
I am an 80/20 guy so while I am sitting here eating my cod/kimchi salad I am also thinking about getting some Arby's potato cakes when I run some errands a little later.
Me too. Even before I was logging, if I got fast food for lunch I'd have a big green salad with shrimp, or a bowl of veggie soup for dinner. I kind of naturally knew to balance out the types of food, and I thought I was balancing out the calories, but learned I was a little off on the calories when I started logging.
I recently started getting the Shredded Chicken Burrito, I find it more filling. Or I'll get a couple of tacos with a side of beans. I assume it's the fiber that makes those combos more filling.
If I want a burger, I'll get a Dave's single with cheese and fries at Wendy's. It's a big calorie/fat hit, but usually when I have that for lunch, I'm not even hungry at dinner so I'll just have some vegetables/beans to round out my macros.
OP - sorry your thread got off track, but hope you're enjoying the ride
I guess we are still technically discussing the calorie payoff for treat foods! 3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »IMO, 35-40% of one's calories daily long term from a Big Mac or whatever your choice of typical fast food is not moderation,
So I'm a 5'3, 125 lb woman, and it would be about 25% of my daily cals, so presumably for an athletic younger guy it would be a LOT less than 35-40% of one's calories. It would be harder on a woman's deficit calories, but that's not "long term," long term = maintenance.
It's also a thought-experiment, no one is recommending it (I think no one would really want to do it).
But you consistently resist explaining why the BigMac would be uniquely bad vs. other choices one might make in a typical diet. I suggested some possibilities, but you did not respond, and you cited generalities that don't address the issues under discussion.
Basically, the BigMac is higher fat beef, the white bread bun, a little cheese (but you could eat it without it, I normally don't get cheese on a burger), and a high fat sauce similar to mayo (using soybean oil, which would not be my preference, but it's not like it's not a common ingredient in things people eat even when they aren't eating fast food).
So how is the BigMac different than someone eating a mix of foods including some red meat, some sources of animal fat, white pasta or rice, and cooking some things in vegetable oil daily? It's really not. It's just that normally we eat meals that are a mix of more and less nutrient dense foods and in the hypothetical the person is eating 2 super healthy, lower fat, high in veg and fiber and low fat sources of protein type meals and one BigMac (or substitute with a homemade and tastier burger using 85% beef, a white bun, and cheese if you prefer).
Is that a sustainable way to eat? Not for me, no. But is it so inherently unhealthy that one must call it out? (And if so, are you consistently calling out everyone who makes similar choices, like insisting that daily red meat is bad for us?) Because unless one is objecting to daily red meat (which I do think might not be a great idea, although the evidence is somewhat unclear given the nature of the studies) or eating ANY white bread/pasta/rice on a daily basis or ANY cheese or soybean oil on a daily basis, I'm not seeing the basis for the claim here. It might be work putting it on the table so we can actually discuss it.
You apparently missed my earlier post:
I like the guideline of many dietitians and people with PhD in nutrition behind their names, get 80-90% of your daily calories from nutrient dense foods (over time can have a total "off' day occasionally) and the other 10-20% whatever. Now if someone is a special snowflake who requires a lot of calories due to activity level, they could probably sneak down a bit on the 80% nutrient dense food. A Big Mac daily on a 1500 calorie a day diet would be between 35-40% of one's daily calories.
The point I have been contesting is not whether anyone can fit in a Big Mac daily and get adequate nutrition, rather the assertion made by @AnnPT77 that this could be done daily, long term by a typical person on a 1500 calorie a day diet and get appropriate nutrition. I have mentioned early that potentially someone on a 1500 calorie a day diet could do so but that person would be very rare.
Oh, and I don't have any particular hate for a Big Mac (that was just what the trainer chose to eat for his experiment), you can substitute any higher calorie, nutrient poor food.1 -
I am eating my maintenance calories currently so I am taking this opportunity to clean out the freezer from some purchases I feel are questionable on calories. One of those purchases was for a bag of root vegetables that were intended to be roasted. The whole bag added to 360 calories. Full of nutrients yes but it was also an extremely small and unsatisfying amount of food even eating the entire bag. I would not want to try to make a big mac fit into each day but I would also not want to try to fit in a bag of those vegetables.5
-
I am eating my maintenance calories currently so I am taking this opportunity to clean out the freezer from some purchases I feel are questionable on calories. One of those purchases was for a bag of root vegetables that were intended to be roasted. The whole bag added to 360 calories. Full of nutrients yes but it was also an extremely small and unsatisfying amount of food even eating the entire bag. I would not want to try to make a big mac fit into each day but I would also not want to try to fit in a bag of those vegetables.
Not sure what you have there, but 7-10 raw carrot would be about 350 calories. Can't imagine a lot of people that would not feel full after eating that.
Maybe the item you pitched had a bunch of calories from some sort of sauce?0 -
I really wish we didn't always get stuck on big macs. I have a harder time arguing in favor of something I, personally, have not eaten for quite a long time. They are a taste of my childhood so if I ever crave one I will make it fit but that just hasn't happened yet and I am not sure it ever will.
Next time we debate this can we go for a quarter pounder with cheese, no ketchup, and extra mustard? TIA Or how about something from Taco Bell? I still crave Krystals (aka White Castles) on occasion that would work.
I would be down for some Taco Bell every so often if it was made like it was back in the 70s-80s. Then they used fresh ground beef with no fillers and fresh veggies. Total different taste than it is today. My favorite back then was the Enchirito and the original Burrito Supreme.3 -
I totally agree with the bolded. I don't eat them. Don't really like them. But they are just a set of macro nutrients and micro nutrients with a certain calorie load. At my maintenance calories, I could eat one everyday and still have almost 2000 calories left for fruits, veggies grains etc. Again, it's all about context and dose and, if one likes them, there would be nothing inherently unhealthy about eating one everyday in the context of a balanced and otherwise healthy diet.I didn't watch the video tbh. But I would love to have seen a before and after detailed blood/cholesterol/glucose/etc work up and see what the Big Macs did to his body besides weight and calories. That stuff is not real food. Maybe just grill a really good grass fed burger ie make your own with real food. Nothing beats a good burger if your a meat eater IMHO.
This is what I'm kind of getting at --
If you assert that eating a BigMac occasionally (which is the realistic application of this) has a different effect on health than eating a 540 cal homemade burger (with 85% beef and cheese and some kind of mayo-like sauce) occasionally, how? What are the specific reasons?
And it's so funny that I'm arguing for this since I hate both mayo and BigMacs, but it just doesn't seem logical.
Even though I don't like them, I find the vague generalizations and the false appeals to authority, such as ascribing what a registered dietician would say, without producing actual proof sources specious. And that is objectionable to me.
Exactly this.3 -
I really wish we didn't always get stuck on big macs. I have a harder time arguing in favor of something I, personally, have not eaten for quite a long time. They are a taste of my childhood so if I ever crave one I will make it fit but that just hasn't happened yet and I am not sure it ever will.
Next time we debate this can we go for a quarter pounder with cheese, no ketchup, and extra mustard? TIA Or how about something from Taco Bell? I still crave Krystals (aka White Castles) on occasion that would work.
I actually agreed with the Culvers if one has to have fast food (I basically only have it when on a road trip), but I still find the idea that the McD's is nutritionally very different to be ludicrous.4 -
nighthawk584 wrote: »I really wish we didn't always get stuck on big macs. I have a harder time arguing in favor of something I, personally, have not eaten for quite a long time. They are a taste of my childhood so if I ever crave one I will make it fit but that just hasn't happened yet and I am not sure it ever will.
Next time we debate this can we go for a quarter pounder with cheese, no ketchup, and extra mustard? TIA Or how about something from Taco Bell? I still crave Krystals (aka White Castles) on occasion that would work.
I would be down for some Taco Bell every so often if it was made like it was back in the 70s-80s. Then they used fresh ground beef with no fillers and fresh veggies. Total different taste than it is today. My favorite back then was the Enchirito and the original Burrito Supreme.
Ditto! I used to love those things. Taco Bell does taste differently now to me, too.
The mini shredded chicken quesadillas on their $1.00 menu are pretty good, though. I'll have a couple of those with a diet Pepsi every now and then.2 -
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »IMO, 35-40% of one's calories daily long term from a Big Mac or whatever your choice of typical fast food is not moderation,
So I'm a 5'3, 125 lb woman, and it would be about 25% of my daily cals, so presumably for an athletic younger guy it would be a LOT less than 35-40% of one's calories. It would be harder on a woman's deficit calories, but that's not "long term," long term = maintenance.
It's also a thought-experiment, no one is recommending it (I think no one would really want to do it).
But you consistently resist explaining why the BigMac would be uniquely bad vs. other choices one might make in a typical diet. I suggested some possibilities, but you did not respond, and you cited generalities that don't address the issues under discussion.
Basically, the BigMac is higher fat beef, the white bread bun, a little cheese (but you could eat it without it, I normally don't get cheese on a burger), and a high fat sauce similar to mayo (using soybean oil, which would not be my preference, but it's not like it's not a common ingredient in things people eat even when they aren't eating fast food).
So how is the BigMac different than someone eating a mix of foods including some red meat, some sources of animal fat, white pasta or rice, and cooking some things in vegetable oil daily? It's really not. It's just that normally we eat meals that are a mix of more and less nutrient dense foods and in the hypothetical the person is eating 2 super healthy, lower fat, high in veg and fiber and low fat sources of protein type meals and one BigMac (or substitute with a homemade and tastier burger using 85% beef, a white bun, and cheese if you prefer).
Is that a sustainable way to eat? Not for me, no. But is it so inherently unhealthy that one must call it out? (And if so, are you consistently calling out everyone who makes similar choices, like insisting that daily red meat is bad for us?) Because unless one is objecting to daily red meat (which I do think might not be a great idea, although the evidence is somewhat unclear given the nature of the studies) or eating ANY white bread/pasta/rice on a daily basis or ANY cheese or soybean oil on a daily basis, I'm not seeing the basis for the claim here. It might be work putting it on the table so we can actually discuss it.
You apparently missed my earlier post:
I like the guideline of many dietitians and people with PhD in nutrition behind their names, get 80-90% of your daily calories from nutrient dense foods (over time can have a total "off' day occasionally) and the other 10-20% whatever. Now if someone is a special snowflake who requires a lot of calories due to activity level, they could probably sneak down a bit on the 80% nutrient dense food. A Big Mac daily on a 1500 calorie a day diet would be between 35-40% of one's daily calories.
The point I have been contesting is not whether anyone can fit in a Big Mac daily and get adequate nutrition, rather the assertion made by @AnnPT77 that this could be done daily, long term by a typical person on a 1500 calorie a day diet and get appropriate nutrition. I have mentioned early that potentially someone on a 1500 calorie a day diet could do so but that person would be very rare.
Oh, and I don't have any particular hate for a Big Mac (that was just what the trainer chose to eat for his experiment), you can substitute any higher calorie, nutrient poor food.
And I said it could be done, but I've never suggested I thought it was a really great strategy, and I made it clear from the start that I would never be doing it (i.e., I said I'm a vegetarian).
I think good, well-rounded nutrition is really important. I may be wrong, but I think I give good overall nutrition a higher priority than quite a few people who post here** (not all of them, obviously). Personally, I think people would be best served by getting enough protein; enough fats (including a high fraction of MUFA/PUFA, rational O-3/O-6 balance, and all that jazz); plenty of fiber; minimum 5+ daily servings of varied, colorful veggies and fruit (and 10+ is better).
** I see a certain amount of "all I worry about is hitting my protein goal", for example, and that's the sort of thing that makes me assert that. I think that some who say that about protein do find that they personally get adequate fats without trying (I don't), but I don't think it's ideal advice to assume that everyone hits a good fats goal without trying, or that food-derived (vs. pill or inadequate) micros or fiber are an irrelevance.
Here's why I'm "defending" the daily Big Mac: I think the contentions that "you must eat this food" or "you must never eat that food" - the "good food/bad food" idea - just complicates the situation. It makes things harder for people (I suspect that was part of the point by the trainer who did the Big Mac/weight loss thing, BTW).
I've looked at a lot of diaries here, and read a lot of threads.
There are people avoiding carbs because of "carbs spike insulin and make everyone gain weight" nonsense from the blogosphere; there are people trying to eat all salads/veggies to minimize calories (or believing the irresponsible fringe of the vegan advocacy sites) and getting way too little protein for best health (even if you think the USDA recommendations are high enough, some people - more often women, it seems - are severely lowballing that).
There are still people who try to get all fats out of their diets because they're calorie-laden and because of the "bad fat" mythology of a couple of decades back that still has influence. There are people who "hate veggies" so won't try any new ones and think a pill is a totally fine alternative. There are people who think that drinking a bunch of highly-processed extracts (meal replacements, supplement powders) are enough for good nutrition because there's a long list of nutrients and "superfood powders" on the label. And more.
Yes, there are people who need to avoid carbs or fats or whatever for medical reasons. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people feeling like they need to add a bunch of arbitrary rules (never eat junk food, can't have candy, must eat kale, blahblahblah), and making it tough (and stressful) to hit the really important basics.
To me, the "must eat this/can't ever eat that" kind of thinking is like a food variant on narrow quasi-religious sectarianism. I think it's simpler to start by hitting one's calorie goal, then gradually work on balancing out macros, and then work on getting foods that are are inherently high in a range of essential micros. Any "junk foods" or "treats" or whatever (short of poisons, allergens, known problems like manufactured trans fats) that fit into that situation are not going to be a big problem.
To me, good, sound, well-rounded nutrition is the goal (the overwhelming majority of the time, not necessarily every single day). Eyes on the goal, fussy rules about individual foods are a distraction and a complication.
As always, just my opinion.11 -
I'm not a nutritionist....and new to MFP so sinning is right up my alley : ) I was looking at the stuff in the makings of a Big Mac....the preservatives, chemicals etc. Regardless of the calories, some of this stuff just can't be good for you.....ie low in nutrition density....and possibly detrimental. Azodicarbonamide in the bun? Propylene glycol alginate in the sauce...Yummy! And I guess it does vary by country....The US allows a lot of stuff banned in other places. Whatever. I will take a Double Double Animal style any day over a Big Mac! Don't mess with my In-N-Out. And yes to chips over popcorn, unless I get salt and butter.3
-
Lobsterboxtops wrote: »Oh dear...there are times I would walk on hot coals to get to a bag of plain ruffle potato chips. I think it’s the salt. Other times they are noise sitting on my my kitchen counter and doesn’t even rate acknowledgement. Luckily I did learn early on to pour in a small bowl as that usually is enough satisfaction. Rarely do I go for another bowl.
Oh. My. Goodness. Ruffle potato chips are definitely the easiest thing for me to binge on. During some of my worst episodes, I've downed almost an entire family size bag. I just keep them out of my house now so I don't get tempted.
But I am definitely a salt person. Popcorn is delicious too, with salt. Makes me feel better eating popcorn though.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »IMO, 35-40% of one's calories daily long term from a Big Mac or whatever your choice of typical fast food is not moderation,
So I'm a 5'3, 125 lb woman, and it would be about 25% of my daily cals, so presumably for an athletic younger guy it would be a LOT less than 35-40% of one's calories. It would be harder on a woman's deficit calories, but that's not "long term," long term = maintenance.
It's also a thought-experiment, no one is recommending it (I think no one would really want to do it).
But you consistently resist explaining why the BigMac would be uniquely bad vs. other choices one might make in a typical diet. I suggested some possibilities, but you did not respond, and you cited generalities that don't address the issues under discussion.
Basically, the BigMac is higher fat beef, the white bread bun, a little cheese (but you could eat it without it, I normally don't get cheese on a burger), and a high fat sauce similar to mayo (using soybean oil, which would not be my preference, but it's not like it's not a common ingredient in things people eat even when they aren't eating fast food).
So how is the BigMac different than someone eating a mix of foods including some red meat, some sources of animal fat, white pasta or rice, and cooking some things in vegetable oil daily? It's really not. It's just that normally we eat meals that are a mix of more and less nutrient dense foods and in the hypothetical the person is eating 2 super healthy, lower fat, high in veg and fiber and low fat sources of protein type meals and one BigMac (or substitute with a homemade and tastier burger using 85% beef, a white bun, and cheese if you prefer).
Is that a sustainable way to eat? Not for me, no. But is it so inherently unhealthy that one must call it out? (And if so, are you consistently calling out everyone who makes similar choices, like insisting that daily red meat is bad for us?) Because unless one is objecting to daily red meat (which I do think might not be a great idea, although the evidence is somewhat unclear given the nature of the studies) or eating ANY white bread/pasta/rice on a daily basis or ANY cheese or soybean oil on a daily basis, I'm not seeing the basis for the claim here. It might be work putting it on the table so we can actually discuss it.
You apparently missed my earlier post:
I like the guideline of many dietitians and people with PhD in nutrition behind their names, get 80-90% of your daily calories from nutrient dense foods (over time can have a total "off' day occasionally) and the other 10-20% whatever. Now if someone is a special snowflake who requires a lot of calories due to activity level, they could probably sneak down a bit on the 80% nutrient dense food. A Big Mac daily on a 1500 calorie a day diet would be between 35-40% of one's daily calories.
The point I have been contesting is not whether anyone can fit in a Big Mac daily and get adequate nutrition, rather the assertion made by @AnnPT77 that this could be done daily, long term by a typical person on a 1500 calorie a day diet and get appropriate nutrition. I have mentioned early that potentially someone on a 1500 calorie a day diet could do so but that person would be very rare.
Oh, and I don't have any particular hate for a Big Mac (that was just what the trainer chose to eat for his experiment), you can substitute any higher calorie, nutrient poor food.
I agree with your first paragraph, except that, again, one would not be "long term" on a deficit.
I think you are wrong is to discount the nutritional elements of the BigMac. It's not a great protein source (too high in fat and comes with refined carbs), but it does contribute protein. That's why I was comparing Ann's hypothetical with a super nutrient dense diet at the other meals plus a BigMac vs. a typical diet including similar ingredients spread out in different meals and saying I don't see a huge difference such that one was necessarily going to cause problems. To illustrate this, the BigMac + foods that hit your nutrition goals otherwise would be something like a more typical (for a somewhat health conscious person) diet where one, for example:
Had a vegetable omelet with some cheese for breakfast, cooked in a little butter.
Had a salad with a store-bought dressing and some roasted chicken (with skin) on it for lunch, along with a nice mix of vegetables, and some fruit on the side, with a piece of toast or some croutons.
Had a pasta with a homemade sauce with 85% ground beef and various vegetables in it. More salad, more store-bought dressing.
Within that diet, one could very easily consume the same amount of cals from the possibly objectionable ingredients in the BigMac -- the beef, the soybean or similar vegetable oil, the cheese, and the refined carbs. It would also be a bit heavy on meat and light on fiber and likely higher in sat fat -- one could, in fact, do quite a bit better in the diet that included the BigMac. This is one reason why I always wonder how people estimate this 80/20 or what not. Many seem to dismiss a pizza dinner as inherently all part of the 20% (even the vegetables on it), but don't insist that the very same ingredients (not even the cheese) = "non nutritious foods" when eating as part of a different meal. Yet I doubt you would be insisting that a person who ate like that most days could not be healthy.
Would the average person who ate a BigMac a day (a strawman person) also have a sufficiently nutrient-dense rest of their diet most days? No, I suspect not, but like I said the whole thing is a thought-experiment -- more about what nutrition involves. That's why I was saying you need to be specific about what is supposedly so different about the BigMac that makes it impossible to be healthy when eating it frequently.
As I understood it, Ann wasn't saying someone could just thoughtlessly eat a BigMac a day and would easily hit 1500 cals and sufficient nutrition (although 540 for a meal isn't weird for someone on 1500 cals). She was saying you could if for some reason you wanted to (I don't think any of us think people are even going to want to do so daily).7 -
I'm not a nutritionist....and new to MFP so sinning is right up my alley : ) I was looking at the stuff in the makings of a Big Mac....the preservatives, chemicals etc. Regardless of the calories, some of this stuff just can't be good for you.....ie low in nutrition density....and possibly detrimental. Azodicarbonamide in the bun? Propylene glycol alginate in the sauce...Yummy! And I guess it does vary by country....The US allows a lot of stuff banned in other places. Whatever. I will take a Double Double Animal style any day over a Big Mac! Don't mess with my In-N-Out. And yes to chips over popcorn, unless I get salt and butter.
Ah, okay. Well, I personally have never seen any evidence that consuming those two particular products is harmful. All I've ever been able to find is fear-mongering because they are also used in non-edible products (yoga mats and anti-freeze, respectively). But then water is an ingredient in Clorox bleach, and we're not scared of water because "Oh no, do you want to consume something that's also in bleach!" so I'm not really concerned about it. But even if there are sketchy ingredients in it, it's still "real" food. There are small amounts of toxins or just generally icky stuff in all sorts of natural foods that we eat every day.
I'm a northeastern US girl, so I've never had In-N-Out, I feel like it should be on my bucket list!9 -
And I said it could be done, but I've never suggested I thought it was a really great strategy, and I made it clear from the start that I would never be doing it (i.e., I said I'm a vegetarian).
This is certainly what I understood from your post, and thanks for clarifying!
I'd happily sign on to the rest of it too.4 -
And I said it could be done, but I've never suggested I thought it was a really great strategy, and I made it clear from the start that I would never be doing it (i.e., I said I'm a vegetarian).
This is certainly what I understood from your post, and thanks for clarifying!
I'd happily sign on to the rest of it too.
As am I.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »I am eating my maintenance calories currently so I am taking this opportunity to clean out the freezer from some purchases I feel are questionable on calories. One of those purchases was for a bag of root vegetables that were intended to be roasted. The whole bag added to 360 calories. Full of nutrients yes but it was also an extremely small and unsatisfying amount of food even eating the entire bag. I would not want to try to make a big mac fit into each day but I would also not want to try to fit in a bag of those vegetables.
Not sure what you have there, but 7-10 raw carrot would be about 350 calories. Can't imagine a lot of people that would not feel full after eating that.
Maybe the item you pitched had a bunch of calories from some sort of sauce?
Medley of potato, sweet potato, carrot, and parsnip. You would have to be accustomed to very small portions for a single serving to be enough even as a side. There were 3 servings in the bag and the total was a pitiful amount of food.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »I’d choose the popcorn. I love popcorn!
I just read that a guy ate a Big Mac every day for a month and lost 7 pounds. Just last month. He was eating 1500 calories a day, not just eating Big Macs
5’4” he was posting on Instagram. Showing there are no bad foods. I think he was a personal trainer, or something like that.
What the guy proved was that if one eats fewer calories then you burn you lose weight, nothing more. Ask any any Registered Dietitian if a 1500 calorie a day diet that includes a Big Mac every day is sustainable for health.
Instagram posts giving nutrition or exercise advice from someone who people think "was a personal trainer or something like that", IMO is not a good idea.
Big Mac, per McD web site:
540 Calories
28 grams Total Fat
46 grams Carbs
25 grams Protein
If a person really wanted to, they could fit one in every day, and get overall decent (healthy) nutrition on 1500 calories, IMO.
Not me, though: I'm vegetarian.
I'm thinking a registed dierition would not agree with your conclusion long term IMO.
I'm thinking you have no idea what a registered dietitian would think on this topic.
You might want to go back and carefully read my comments. I said I doubted a dietitian would think a Big Mac daily was healthy long term, especially on a 1500 calorie a day diet. Heck the trainer mentioned above that ate a Big Mac daily for a month and lost weight said the following:
"I don't want anybody doing this challenge," he said. "I do not think that this challenge is healthy. I don't think it's smart but sometimes you have to do something extreme in order to make a simple point."
Syatt merely wanted to hammer that point home.
"The whole point of it was to show people that you can include your favorite foods into your diet in moderation and not only not lose progress, but actually continue to make progress, because so many people worry about ruining their entire diet if they go off track for one meal, whatever it is."
I would agree with the trainer, and I believe most dietitians would say that a Big Mac is an "occasional" food and not an everyday food.
If you can cite something where an actual nutrition professional says a Big Mac a day is fine long term for one's health, please post as I would be interested in reading it.
Who said anything about a Big Mac per day? And, based on the macros, why would it not be in the context of an diet that had good balance overall? These kind of judgements don't really consider context and amount and, honestly come across as orthorexic.
Please refer to the post by @AnnPT77 above which I responded to originally stating that IMO I do not believe for health reasons a dietitian would suggest that a diet that included a Big Mac a day would be healthy. As I stated above, and I believe would be in line with most dietitians, a Big Mac is an occasional type of food.
Here is the post I responded to:
Big Mac, per McD web site:
540 Calories
28 grams Total Fat
46 grams Carbs
25 grams Protein
If a person really wanted to, they could fit one in every day, and get overall decent (healthy) nutrition on 1500 calories, IMO.
Not me, though: I'm vegetarian
I absolutely said that, and I own it.
The point is: What matters is the whole way of eating, not one food or meal. The Big Mac is not the devil. It's basically meat and bread, plus some condiments and negligible veggies . . . normal foods, but nutritionally unbalanced on its own.
If the rest of the person's day tops up protein, and includes a bunch of nice veggies and fruits, maybe some whole grains, MUFAs, PUFAs, they're good.
Even as a vegetarian, I eat meals that have a similar macro profile to a Big Mac. I don't see why I should deprecate it even though (1) I wouldn't eat it unless under major duress, and (2) I think spending a third of calories on that makes the rest of the day unnecessarily more challenging. It wouldn't be my daily choice even if I ate meat. But it's food, with meaningful nutrients.
It doesn't make sense to me to look at it in any other way. But I'm certainly not a dietitian, and don't pretend to be.
Got into an argument Sunday with a family member who claimed that blueberries were healthier than black beans. I didn't bother asking why he thought that, but went with essentially your position "What matters is the whole way of eating, not one food or meal."
This was shortly after educating him that "natural flavors", while vague, does not automatically equal something to be avoided. His understanding was something different than this:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=501.22
(3) The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional. Natural flavors, include the natural essence or extractives obtained from plants listed in subpart A of part 582 of this chapter, and the substances listed in 172.510 of this chapter.
I'm loving having a smart phone available for these conversations!5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »I’d choose the popcorn. I love popcorn!
I just read that a guy ate a Big Mac every day for a month and lost 7 pounds. Just last month. He was eating 1500 calories a day, not just eating Big Macs
5’4” he was posting on Instagram. Showing there are no bad foods. I think he was a personal trainer, or something like that.
What the guy proved was that if one eats fewer calories then you burn you lose weight, nothing more. Ask any any Registered Dietitian if a 1500 calorie a day diet that includes a Big Mac every day is sustainable for health.
Instagram posts giving nutrition or exercise advice from someone who people think "was a personal trainer or something like that", IMO is not a good idea.
Big Mac, per McD web site:
540 Calories
28 grams Total Fat
46 grams Carbs
25 grams Protein
If a person really wanted to, they could fit one in every day, and get overall decent (healthy) nutrition on 1500 calories, IMO.
Not me, though: I'm vegetarian.
I'm thinking a registed dierition would not agree with your conclusion long term IMO.
I'm thinking you have no idea what a registered dietitian would think on this topic.
You might want to go back and carefully read my comments. I said I doubted a dietitian would think a Big Mac daily was healthy long term, especially on a 1500 calorie a day diet. Heck the trainer mentioned above that ate a Big Mac daily for a month and lost weight said the following:
"I don't want anybody doing this challenge," he said. "I do not think that this challenge is healthy. I don't think it's smart but sometimes you have to do something extreme in order to make a simple point."
Syatt merely wanted to hammer that point home.
"The whole point of it was to show people that you can include your favorite foods into your diet in moderation and not only not lose progress, but actually continue to make progress, because so many people worry about ruining their entire diet if they go off track for one meal, whatever it is."
I would agree with the trainer, and I believe most dietitians would say that a Big Mac is an "occasional" food and not an everyday food.
If you can cite something where an actual nutrition professional says a Big Mac a day is fine long term for one's health, please post as I would be interested in reading it.
Who said anything about a Big Mac per day? And, based on the macros, why would it not be in the context of an diet that had good balance overall? These kind of judgements don't really consider context and amount and, honestly come across as orthorexic.
Please refer to the post by @AnnPT77 above which I responded to originally stating that IMO I do not believe for health reasons a dietitian would suggest that a diet that included a Big Mac a day would be healthy. As I stated above, and I believe would be in line with most dietitians, a Big Mac is an occasional type of food.
Here is the post I responded to:
Big Mac, per McD web site:
540 Calories
28 grams Total Fat
46 grams Carbs
25 grams Protein
If a person really wanted to, they could fit one in every day, and get overall decent (healthy) nutrition on 1500 calories, IMO.
Not me, though: I'm vegetarian
I absolutely said that, and I own it.
The point is: What matters is the whole way of eating, not one food or meal. The Big Mac is not the devil. It's basically meat and bread, plus some condiments and negligible veggies . . . normal foods, but nutritionally unbalanced on its own.
If the rest of the person's day tops up protein, and includes a bunch of nice veggies and fruits, maybe some whole grains, MUFAs, PUFAs, they're good.
Even as a vegetarian, I eat meals that have a similar macro profile to a Big Mac. I don't see why I should deprecate it even though (1) I wouldn't eat it unless under major duress, and (2) I think spending a third of calories on that makes the rest of the day unnecessarily more challenging. It wouldn't be my daily choice even if I ate meat. But it's food, with meaningful nutrients.
It doesn't make sense to me to look at it in any other way. But I'm certainly not a dietitian, and don't pretend to be.
Got into an argument Sunday with a family member who claimed that blueberries were healthier than black beans. I didn't bother asking why he thought that, but went with essentially your position "What matters is the whole way of eating, not one food or meal."
This reminds me that one of my least favorite types of questions are things like:
What's healthier, chicken or salmon? Or what's healthier, kale or spinach? Or potatoes or sweet potatoes (or claims that sweet potatoes are healthier and should replace potatoes in all cases). Or "what's the healthiest vegetable? Grain? Fruit?
It's like people think they should identify the 5 most nutrient dense foods (one in each category, perhaps) and eat only them. As if there were no benefits to, you know, having a somewhat varied diet since different foods have different positives.
(This would be an argument against the "eating a BigMac a day" concept (which I don't, in fact, consider a good idea), but related to the broad concept that good nutrition is about avoiding certain foods rather than getting in a variety of positives from what you in fact do eat.4 -
Medley of potato, sweet potato, carrot, and parsnip. You would have to be accustomed to very small portions for a single serving to be enough even as a side. There were 3 servings in the bag and the total was a pitiful amount of food.
I normally agree with you but your root veggies thingy has me confused. Are you using correct values/weights etc?
Carrots tend to be low calories per gram. Potatoes and sweet potatoes tend to be higher valued but fairly satiating.
Assuming 77/100g for potato with skin and 86/100g for sweet potato, 41/100g for carrot, and 75/100g for parsnips, we are at about 70 per 100g or just over 500g for your 360Cal portion.
About double the uncooked weight of a big mac (per McD's GB: 74g bun, 90g raw patties, 14g cheese, 28g lettuce, 7g pickles, 7g onions, 20g thousand island special sauce)
(actually after an exhaustive comparison of the nutritional value of regular vs sweet potatoes and personal satiety evaluations I've concluded that for the calories I prefer regular potatoes, and the sweet potatoes are relegated to when I am attempting to make "a brownie-like-dessert-that-includes-veggies" or "pumpkin and sweet potato soup or curry", or other weird stuff like that... but really, calorie wise the regular potato doesn't lose to the sweet potato, to the contrary nutrition and vitamin wise they are very similar, and the sweetness pushes the sweet potato more into dessert than meal while the imagined health benefits remain... imagined)... but I digress...5 -
Medley of potato, sweet potato, carrot, and parsnip. You would have to be accustomed to very small portions for a single serving to be enough even as a side. There were 3 servings in the bag and the total was a pitiful amount of food.
I normally agree with you but your root veggies thingy has me confused. Are you using correct values/weights etc?
Carrots tend to be low calories per gram. Potatoes and sweet potatoes tend to be higher valued but fairly satiating.
Assuming 77/100g for potato with skin and 86/100g for sweet potato, 41/100g for carrot, and 75/100g for parsnips, we are at about 70 per 100g or just over 500g for your 360Cal portion.
About double the uncooked weight of a big mac (per McD's GB: 74g bun, 90g raw patties, 14g cheese, 28g lettuce, 7g pickles, 7g onions, 20g thousand island special sauce)
(actually after an exhaustive comparison of the nutritional value of regular vs sweet potatoes and personal satiety evaluations I've concluded that for the calories I prefer regular potatoes, and the sweet potatoes are relegated to when I am attempting to make "a brownie-like-dessert-that-includes-veggies" or "pumpkin and sweet potato soup or curry", or other weird stuff like that... but really, calorie wise the regular potato doesn't lose to the sweet potato, to the contrary nutrition and vitamin wise they are very similar, and the sweetness pushes the sweet potato more into dessert than meal while the imagined health benefits remain... imagined)... but I digress...
Yes sir. I actually have a good sweet potato curry soup recipe. I make it for Thanksgiving every year. Sweet potatoes have a caloric density of .8 cals a gram. Carrots are about .5 cals a gram, so I would have to eat over 600 grams of sweet potato to get the calories of a big mac.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »Yes sir. I actually have a good sweet potato curry soup recipe. I make it for Thanksgiving every year. Sweet potatoes have a caloric density of .8 cals a gram. Carrots are about .5 cals a gram, so I would have to eat over 600 grams of sweet potato to get the calories of a big mac.
I am discombobulated by the changes made by the USDA to the access we had to the now "legacy" standard reference databases
Still figuring out if the "new" access they redirect us to is better or worse.0 -
Worse!4
-
Unfortunately "worse" is my current feeling too
3 -
Medley of potato, sweet potato, carrot, and parsnip. You would have to be accustomed to very small portions for a single serving to be enough even as a side. There were 3 servings in the bag and the total was a pitiful amount of food.
I normally agree with you but your root veggies thingy has me confused. Are you using correct values/weights etc?
Carrots tend to be low calories per gram. Potatoes and sweet potatoes tend to be higher valued but fairly satiating.
Assuming 77/100g for potato with skin and 86/100g for sweet potato, 41/100g for carrot, and 75/100g for parsnips, we are at about 70 per 100g or just over 500g for your 360Cal portion.
About double the uncooked weight of a big mac (per McD's GB: 74g bun, 90g raw patties, 14g cheese, 28g lettuce, 7g pickles, 7g onions, 20g thousand island special sauce)
(actually after an exhaustive comparison of the nutritional value of regular vs sweet potatoes and personal satiety evaluations I've concluded that for the calories I prefer regular potatoes, and the sweet potatoes are relegated to when I am attempting to make "a brownie-like-dessert-that-includes-veggies" or "pumpkin and sweet potato soup or curry", or other weird stuff like that... but really, calorie wise the regular potato doesn't lose to the sweet potato, to the contrary nutrition and vitamin wise they are very similar, and the sweetness pushes the sweet potato more into dessert than meal while the imagined health benefits remain... imagined)... but I digress...
I went with the calories on the bag. I did not weigh it out because I didn't want to pick it apart. I am in recovery at the moment eating maintenance so I am not being as precise as normal.
I was incorrect. It was supposed to be 6 serviings. It was still a very pitiful amount so I probably should have weighed it.
https://pictsweetfarms.com/product/sweet-potatoes-red-potatoes-carrots-butternut-squash/vegetables-for-roasting/how-to-roast/97090/
Mine had parsnips instead of squash so I guess they have changed the recipe since I bought it but the calories are the same.2 -
Just to add a thought to my rant up there ^^^ on page 6:
Let's assume that someone(s) are motivated to pursue both a calorie goal and well-rounded, balanced nutrition. They're food logging, but they truly want to do something like eating a Big Mac every day (or any other variation on somewhat calorie-dense but not nutrition-dense routine food choice(s)). Let's assume they can fit it into calories, and compensate in the rest of the day to get adequate nutrition. ( <== hypothetical! )
Over time, I think many people (not everyone) in that position will discover, all on their own, that the calorie cost of that strategy, plus the constraint on the rest of the day, isn't as desirable a thing as they initially thought. It could happen because they find they need to eat oddly (for their tastes) to hit the nutrition goals; it could happen because they find satiation a challenge. I think many people will begin to sub in other choices that are also tasty to them, but not as challenging to fit in, at least part of the time. Their eating may thus gradually evolve.
In this scenario, they will discover and decide on their own what eating strategies work best for them personally. There will be insights, decisions, a sense of agency. Voila, empowerment.
On the flip side, I think that hectoring people about how bad "junk food" or "fast food" is, and how they should never eat it, is less effective. It tends to set up that whole "food is sin, sin requires suffering, for expiation" nonsense, a scenario that tends to make some people feel like they're "bad" "a failure" "have fallen off the wagon", "just can't succeed at weight loss because they have no willpower", etc. Further, hectoring can make some people either rebel, or feel that they need to sneak around and not log certain foods they find highly desirable ("cheat").
This is very oversimplified, and I recognize that it's idealistic, but I still think there's a grain of sense in there.
That's why I think "hit your calorie goal the overwhelming majority of the time, eat what you enjoy, and work toward balanced nutrition" is good advice to give, and why I give it.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions